Fujifilm X-T10 Review

The Fujifilm X-T1 was a landmark camera in many ways, with it's extremely high resolution electronic viewfinder, great image quality, weather-sealed body, and engaging control system (we even gave it a Gold award). It's fairly commonplace for camera companies to follow up successful launches of high-end products, such as the X-T1, with a slightly-stripped down, more reasonably-priced alternative that uses many of the same components; a younger sibling, if you will. The Fujifilm X-T10 is exactly that.

At its core are the same 16MP X-Trans CMOS II APS-C sensor and EXR Processor II. It carries on the SLR-like tradition (as opposed to Fujifilm's more rangefinder-like cameras), and offers ample control points, customizable buttons, a tilting LCD, and of course, Fujifilm's much-loved film emulations. Fujifilm is aiming it at hobbyist and a younger generation of creatives: essentially those who might not be able to afford (or don't want to spend more than $1000 on) the X-T1, but still want the same image quality it offers.

As expected, a large number of the key features associated with the X-T10 are identical, or very similar, to those of the X-T1. One major feature, a vastly improved AF system, was first announced as a firmware update for the X-T1 a few weeks ago. Every one of those AF updates come standard in the X-T10. They mainly concentrate on improving AF performance in low contrast situations as well as adding the ability to track subjects across the frame. This is the first time Fujifilm has offered any sort of real subject tracking capabilities to its cameras.

The X-T10 also sports a brand new graphic user interface that offers customizable display icons. Other features includes front and rear control dials that can be clicked inward, essentially giving each dial a secondary function. Also, as of launch, Fujifilm claims the X-T10's EVF has 'the World's shortest lag time' at just 0.005 secs.

Compared to X-T1

The X-T10 is available now for $400 less than the X-T1's list price. That's a nice chunk of change saved that could be invested in lenses or other accessories. So what do you sacrifice?

Fujifilm X-T10

Fujifilm X-T1

Sensor

16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor

16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor

Processor

EXR Processor II

EXR Processor II

ISO range (expanded)

ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 51200 expanded (JPEG only)

ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 51200 expanded (JPEG only)

Body material

Magnesium alloy

Magnesium alloy

Weather sealing

No

Yes

Custom function buttons

7

6

Viewfinder specs

2.36M dot OLED EVF with 0.62x magnification

2.36M dot OLED EVF with 0.77x magnification

LCD specs

3 inch, 920k dots

3 inch 1040k dots

Pop-up flash

Yes

No

Flash sync port

No

Yes

Burst rate

8fps

8fps

Size

400cm3

541cm3

Weight

381g

440g

Body price at launch

$800

$1300

While both cameras offer 2.36M dot OLED EVFs, the X-T10's is smaller, using optics that offer 0.62x magnification, vs the 0.77x magnification of the X-T1's EVF. If 0.62x magnification sounds familiar, that's because the Fujifilm X30 compact has the exact same EVF, with the same magnification.

You'll also lose the extensive weather-sealing of the X-T1. This sacrifice is a bit less obvious, as the X-T10 has a very impressive build-quality and feel, on par with the X-T1. Interestingly, it is not made in Japan like most of Fujifilm's high-end gear. The bottom reveals it is instead manufactured in Thailand. Other differences include a slightly less high-res LCD on the X-T10, 920k dots vs 1040k dots on the X-T1.

On the flip side, the X-T10 does offer some advantages over its big brother, including a pop-up flash, that new graphic user interface in the viewfinder, and a smaller, lighter body; 381g vs 440g. It's not an earth-shattering difference, but it is certainly noticeable.

The two cameras are laid out in very similar fashion. Both offer 3 control dials on top, with plenty of custom function buttons located around the camera body. The X-T10 has seven customizable buttons in total, compared to six on the X-T1. In terms of direct controls, the X-T10 has a dedicated shutter speed, exposure compensation and drive mode dial.

Kit options and accessories

The Fujifilm X-T10 will be available in either black or silver in a variety of different kit options. The silver, by the way, is a brand new coating that is slightly lighter in color than the 'titanium' coating of the X-T1.

The body only is set at $800, kitted with a Fujinon 16-50mmf/3.5-5.6 OIS it will cost $899. With the nicer Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS, it will cost $1099. Interestingly, the X-T10, body-only, will retail for exactly the same price, at launch, as another new APS-C ILC: the Nikon D5500.

Fujifilm is also offering two different accessories as of launch: a leather case and a hand grip. The hand grip is essentially the same design concept as the ones released for the X-E2 and X-Pro1 back in January, 2014. It affixes to the bottom of the camera body and doubles as an ArcaSwiss-compatible plate. Pretty sweet. The leather case is also quite well-thought-out, it offers a door to access the battery and memory card, without having to take it off, as well as a tripod socket.

Comments

When Fuji gives up their "interesting" sensor technology and switches to Bayer, I'll have a second look at X system. Now, Sony's and Samsung's APSC sensors are superior in details (and slightly in DR but not too important for me). Some like Fuji's sensors, I don't.

Well, despite the current limitations, I'd say the sensor format is meant to improve on the bayer one, for the same sensor technology, and suffers less from artifacts like aliasing. So why shouldn't others switch to X-trans instead? ;-)

cantanima, XA2 is a simple camera, I'm thinking about XT1 or XT10. I like Fuji lenses, the sensor though is an enemy of small details. It smears small frequency details a lot, even at low ISOs. True for JPEGs and RAWs in ACR (need to use Photoshop unfortunately, cannot afford to use multiple software).

I think someone should run those Raw files through SilkyPix Pro6 and Capture One to see whether the smoothed detail re-appears...This compares the current Adobe X-Trans handling from when it was launched with others:http://chromasoft.blogspot.it/2013/03/lightroom-44rc-and-capture-one-versus-x.html"Firstly, Adobe's products, even in the new LR 4.4RC/ACR7.4 form, still don't stack up. Although much improved over the previous generation, they still have excessive chroma smearing relative to image resolution. "Note was written by a raw software developer and Adobe haven't changed the X-Trans handling since then.

"And that's one of the nice things about buying a camera like the X-T10: there is a good chance that Fujifilm will stand by it, even down the road, by means of firmware updates."

True for some of the X-Series cameras. But very unlikely for the X-T10. This camera is in the range of the market, where major firmware updates are delivered through "Mark II" models. Or in case of Fuji: as X-T10S.

There's no real evidence for that so far. They updated the X-E1 and X-E2 many times. Though the X-E2 is currently languishing somewhat I suspect we'll see a big update when the X-PRO2 comes out, since they are the most comparable and can probably share similar FW.

As long as the X-T10 gets a trickle of the new features developed for the X-T1/X-T2 I'll be happy. It's already a great camera with no huge flaws the way the X-E1 originally had, so it's not nearly as urgent.

Image quality: good enough. Honestly, I have yet to see a new camera that would tempt me to upgrade from my current body, introduced more than three years ago. Buy a camera based on the ergonomics (mostly subjective) and on the available lenses. The XT-10 image quality and resolution will almost certainly be more than "good enough".

For the manufacturers, this may be crisis point, but it's a great time to be a photographer.

I don't think I would ever make a camera-buying decision on the basis that 16MP is inadequate for my needs. Scarcely more than ten years ago most people thought 6MP was adequate, and they were mostly right.

6 megapixels wasn't good for anything, except claiming it was better than 4 megapixels. 16 is adequate for many things. I still use a D700 on a regular basis for photographs of groups that are printed on 11x17. You need to resolve a lot of detail for all those faces.

I still use a D7000 for a lot of things too, and most of the time the resolution is fine.

Sometimes it isn't though. I think a lot of people who say that chasing higher resolutions is pointless have access to a wide selection of good lenses. I shoot some water sports events where I can't always get as close physically or with the zoom as I'd like. The D5300 gets more useful crops in those circumstances than the D7000.

Big sensors are better than small sensors..... That being said I have captured outstanding images with my Samsung galaxy s5 and printed them 11x17 and was amazed at how good they looked. The photographer takes the picture not the camera is but a tool. Megapixels are an advertising tool and for bragging. Bigger pixels equals better dynamic range and at 16 you will have all the detail you need.

Yes I prefer nice glass and a moderate megapixel count (still using the 60D and EOS 1Ds MKII here) than more than 20 megapixels and kit lens.

If people weren't willing to go chasing the rabbit of megapixels each year they would be able to buy nice glass.

Both my 1Ds MKII and 60D are still going strong (the first just had the shutter replaced)

Think of this the EOS 70D right now is 999.00 USD, the EOS 7D MKII around 1400 bucks (rebate going in the USA) if your camera body still serves you well and you don't need something specific from those two cameras, why change the old one? you could get with 999.00 or 1400 some serious cool L glass.

Paul Simon, when you grab a great shot of the moon on a phone camera, with some lovely detail of the southern craters, I will salute you. But I don't think that is going to happen.

Vanatis - correct, the moon cropped large from 16mp at 200mm looks casually OK on a phone, so long as you don't zoom in, but if I'm buying a new body today I'd like more. 24 is absolutely fine, btw, I think we hit the aps-c sweet spot right there.

Part of the issue with mirrorless bodies is that once their tech ages you're left with a rather charmless object, whereas a 1Ds will be a wonderful tool for many years yet - much more so than with big functional DSLRs, CSC appeal is tech driven. I believe Paul Nicklen, who I'm sure could have any camera he wanted at zero cost, still uses a 1Ds mkii.

You could have given a real world example that with a middling consumer lens a photo taken with a 6mp sensor is indistinguishable from a 50mp sensor. I'd have been happy to discuss that.

Instead you said something you know was incredibly insulting. I'm not playing the victim, I'm genuinely disappointed that someone on a forum where we all meet to discuss our passion would deliver such a 'low blow'.

Rather than explaining logically why you believe my argument to be wrong, you've just told me extremely patronisingly that I'm wrong. Have you had any luck with the past? Or have you just left a trail of insulted people who are absolutely none the wiser for all your apparent knowledge, which you'd prefer not to share because being unpleasant is more fun?

We could have been two people on the internet discussing something and perhaps I could have learnt something. Rather I'm sitting here on a Sunday wondering why you escalated it so unpleasantly.

Fodge and Burn I already told you why you are overkilling it, because simply your smartphone screen is 1/3 or 1/4 of the resolution of a 24 mepagixel photo, so you DON'T need those 24 megapixels to show your photos in a smartphone...

It would be like saying you need a 24 megapxiel camera so you could show your photos on your 1080p tv ( high end smartphones now have the same resolution than tvs) and it would be in vain since 1080p is... to say the least low res in terms of resolution for still images.

Why? because 1920x1080 pixel are 2.1 megapixels... tadaaaaaaah

I told you before this but you certainly go on with this ludicrous attitude to rebutt real facts ending up in you uttering a silly amount of nonsense.

I was using an X-T1 and X-E1 side by side and never even noticed the difference in the EVF. The main reason to care is if you make heavy use of the picture-in-picture manual focus aid, which is only on the X-T1 because it takes so much space.

I do miss it but honestly I don't manual focus that often and the focus peaking works really well on the X-T10.

I have an X-E1 but tried an X-T1 at a store. The difference was earth-shattering to me. Huge improvement in various ways, IMO. Funny how much that sort of thing can differ between people! The X-T10 EVF is larger than the X-E1's though, and more responsive, so I would happily take it also.

I think there are going to be price drops on the X-T1 soon, or at least very nice sale prices. Fuji quickly discounts their cameras when they introduce duplicated/improved functionality from what I've seen, sometimes even before a new release.

DPR team...You've not bin to kind about the continuous autofocus ability of the xt-10...As an owner of the omd em-5,,which is dreadful in this respect,,i was wondering if,,as a birdy togger,,if a bird was flying across the scene,,providing i kept it covered by phase detect points,,would it keep focus when half press shutter in continuous mode??...To add i couldn't careless about face detect...that will be always off...

Nice enough camera and sensibly priced. I would say Fuji's real advantage over other mirrorless APS-C cameras is the quality of some of their lenses. The problem, of course, is the 16 MP X-Trans, which is showing its age a bit. Image quality is pretty much unchanged since the X-Pro, which, by the way, can be had for about £350 now... so for those of us who don't need fast focus there's an even cheaper way to gain access to Fuji's funky lenses and it's built like a tank!

It's unchanged but IMHO the 16 mp sensor is still the best on the market. I currently own a camera with the renowned 24 mp Sony and there is visible noise even at base ISO. My former 16 mp Sony was clean all the way to ISO 3200.

The old Sony 16MP (which still graces the Ricoh GR) does have some magic to it. Some people have noted a slightly hazy look to the 24MP one in the A6000 etc. Samsung's new 28MP BSI sensor is probably the best APS-C chip on the market at the moment, but Fuji have the advantage of 'pro' build, some excellent if expensive lenses, and a reputation for looking after their customers.

> That being said, a lot of the X-Pro1's AF 'issues' are massively overstated for the kind of photography it's designed for.

I agree with you because in the sentence before you said you do in fact find the AF on the first-gen Fuji's to be worse, but even there your statement here feels wrong.

I don't think Fuji "designed" the X-Pro1 to have slow AF and an AF-C mode that basically doesn't work at all, no one would design it that way. What happened is that the "intended use" of the camera morphed as it's strengths/weaknesses became clear. Fuji called it "Pro" because they thought pros would want to use it, and that was a big mistake because it's a fundamentally beautiful but crippled camera compared to what most pros are used to.

If it was called the X-Amateur, as in "for people who love photography first and foremost" that would be the perfect name for it, because that's what it excels at.

IMHO if anything should be called the PRO it's the X-T1 with it's overabundance of knobs and buttons. Even if there was an X-PRO2 out with all the updates from the X-T1, it still wouldn't be the obvious pro choice because the form factor has less room for dials and the OVF is unlikely to draw in pros compared to amateurs/photo-lovers.

If I was them I'd scap "x-pro" entirely and make the X-E3 be the follow-up to the X-PRO1, continuing the line of ILC rangefinder cameras (along with X100S) and integrating the hybrid OVF. That would make a clear lineup: "regular" (slr) format high end or low end, OR luxurious Leica-esque rangefinder for nerds and enthusiasts.

I agree with that; professional photographers will stick to their DSLRs for now anyway, if only for the extended battery life and range of glassware. I bought a cheap X-Pro1 for travel and kicking around, and basically just shoot it with the 35/1.4; if they ever get round to updating their atrocious 18mm, then I could be temped by that too, but whichever way you slice it, the only thing 'pro' about the X-Pro1 is the build quality, which is excellent.

X-E1 also has great build quality IMHO, when I first got mine I could hardly believe I could afford it (it was after X-E2 came out and really cheap by that point). Compared to my old Rebel it felt like a Leica.

X-T10 is the first Fuji I've used (never tried X-A/M1) that does feel a bit "cheaper" in some ways (command dials mostly, which were SO MUCH NICER on the X-E1 for some reason), though also by no means does it feel like a cheap camera, and it looks great regardless.

Don Sata no not at all, not sure why you would even ask that question. I'm an enthusiast which is why I bought the X-T10 not the X-T1.

Any camera can be used by a Pros of course, but I think what makes a camera "Pro" is that it satisfies the needs of professionals in particular, as opposed to enthusiasts/amateurs that don't need to "get things done" as urgently.

"Pro" cameras/lenses are larger because Pros don't have the luxury of worrying about the weight of their equipment. "Pro" cameras are complicated/hard to use because pros need it to work precisely and don't have the luxury of only using "easy" equipment. Pro cameras are "fast" because pros need to get the shot no matter what, unlike amateurs who can "miss the shot" without failing a client demand.

Nothing about the "X-PRO" philosophy of slow, careful operation with focus on the experience (hybrid rangefinder) and primes (hybrid rangefinder) indicates that it's a PRO camera compared to the X-T1.

The truth is that every genre of photography has it's own set of "pro" performance hallmarks. You can do perfect professional grade astrophotography, landscape, travel, photojournalism, portraits, product shots, etc... with an X-Pro1.

For every Pro using a Nikon D4s for a fashion session there is an amateur using it to shoot bugs in the yard and a Pro clinging to it's Nikon D90's electronic shutter or worse, using a compact film camera or phone for a high profile paid job.

In the end a professional is a photographer who can make a living out of shooting pictures. Having the right connections and reputation are more important to ensure you remain a professional than toting the largest meanest camera-lens combo.

Camera manufacturers will go out of their way to make you believe Pros must not settle for anything less than the top of the line equipment but once the images are printed or running online nobody will know or care where did they come from.

Ok now let us discuss 16mp. Everybody talks down the 16mp sensors as being inadequate nowadays. It is certainly adequate for A3 . I look at my Olympus OM-1 and am beginning to feel that it cannot be taken seriously anymore.yet 5 yrs ago professional photographers (I am a rank amateur) seemed to be quite happy with 12MP . I have seen great magazine photos taken with cameras of this sort of resolution in the past. What is adequate? Only polite comments requested-thanks.

It's adequate if you don't make large prints of things containing lots of high frequency detail. If you do, then you'll probably prefer a higher resolution sensor. I print A3+ and can see the limitations of my two 16MP APS-C cameras (Ricoh GR and X-Pro1 with 35/1.4); I also have a Sony A7R and Nikon D810, so I can easily compare. That being said, 16MP is perfectly acceptable for many purposes; I recently took my GR and X-Pro1+35/1.4 on a trip to the Norwegian fjords and was mostly pleased with the results. But the bottom line, and the problem for Fuji, is that its competitors are offering more modern sensors in comparably priced bodies; other things being equal, people will buy the best they can get for their money. I only bought the X-Pro1 because it was very hard and very cheap!

Can you show me in the noise/DR comparison charts where the Fuji X-Pro1 looks outdated?

In the ACR noise comparison it easily compares to Nikon D4 and Sony A7 and the likes.

When you look at the Dynamic range in RAW files, after setting DR400 (and even DR200) you beat anything there is, including the Sony A7R and the Nikon D810.

Sure, the Sensor only produces 16MP files but therein the resolution is much better than with a 24 MP Bayer sensor (with AA filter) and therefore you should be able to scale the images to 24MP if needed.

"Technically, the camera achieves this by applying less amplification to the sensor's output than usual prior to AD conversion to avoid clipping highlight data, then pulling-up the midtones to the correct brightness in JPEG processing. This is essentially the same process as Canon and Pentax use for their highlight-expansion modes."

All Fujifilm (as well as Canon and Pentax per the text) are doing is underexposing the shot by 1 stop (DR200) or 2 stops (DR400) and then boosting the JPEG output for all but the highlights accordingly. I've verified this myself as the RAW file under DR200 is exactly one stop underexposed when viewed in Aperture. LR reads the tone curve tag and automatically boosts by one stop to normalize the RAW file.

I does work with RAW files. If you expose for the highlights - and mind, whatever camera you use, the success of this depends on exposing as far to the right as you can without clipping - you can then set the mid and shadow brightness where you like. Of course noise will become an issue, and you really want the ISO as low as possible. Fuji's DR400 depends on an ISO800 setting at which noise is a problem, much as you'd expect. Granted, for whatever reason, Fuji's RAWs are pretty smooth at high ISOs, my guess being because they bake in some noise reduction, and fine detail isn't the sensor's forte anyway. I always set ISO 200 (base) on my XPro, shoot RAW, expose to the right, and set final brightness in post. You need to keep an eye on the histogram though because it tends to underexpose left to its own devices. There's no magic in these X-Trans sensors - they're just a version of the old Sony 16MP sensor with a funny colour filter, that's all.

An interesting experiment would be to have someone with access to a variety of cameras shoot a scene, process the files carefully then make A3-sized prints from each camera. These prints could then be scanned and presented to the readers in a blind test. I'm sure that there would be some surprises with respect to which camera came off the best.

The A6000 is cheaply made compared with these Fujis, and the sensor output is a bit noisy. Unless you really need the AF performance, a strong case can be made for preferring the Fuji, especially if you want high end glassware.

The problem with most people on DPR is that they are mainly concerned about the feature set of a camera and never about the shooting experience or the useability of said features.

I never liked the build quality of Sony cameras, even the A7 series feels wrong in my hands and the A6000 is simply rubbish.My Fuji X100s fells superior to all the Sonys I've ever held in hands and don't get me talking about my old Nikon film camera. lol

There's no video mode on the X-T10 and it's one of my biggest annoyances with the camera.

The X-E1 had a video mode in the "Drive" menu, when you entered it you could press the shutter button to start and stop recording.

On the X-T10 all you have is a video function button. Pushing it starts recording and stops recording, before and after which you are in stills shooting mode. The only way to set up your video shot is to use the menus before pushing this button.

It's a terrible experience and the impression it gives is that Fuji doesn't even WANT us to use the feature for anything other than emergency evidence gathering :S

Please Fuji: At least give us a chance to find situations where the video quality is usable (stable/tripod, no patterns that cause bad moiré).

Photominion: I think that stems from the fact that DPR readers are here to read reviews because they cannot just buy *every camera*, and probably cannot properly try every camera, so their only solid data is the orgy of specs that DPR presents. I certainly appreciate the detail of the reviews, but the sort of junk you see in the comments is encouraged by the review philosphy of DPR.

What bugs me is how they say "our DR comparisons are based on in-camera jpegs" which are arbitrarily processed, usually without mention of Fuji's film simulations and similar options used. Or, how they insist on using Lightroom only instead of comparing output from various converters (or better yet, RawDigger). Or how there is little detail about lenses and settings used (or other changes made to raw files) for their studio tests (lenses are often the bigger determinant). The IQ comparisons here are presented as objectivity, but they are not. Moreso for sensors under 35mm, and moreso against non-Bayer.

Yeah I don't think they are going to fix the buffer depth (assuming that's what you meant?) with firmware, it's probably caused by a cheaper I/O component and the same cause as the lack of support for the faster SD cards (UHS II?) that the X-T1 supports.

They could definitely improve video via firmware IMHO, if only by making the interface/buttons/menus less awful. Hopefully they'll make some breakthrough on the codec front too while developing the X-T2 and backport it to the other cameras. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.

Buffer depth is probably partly because they don't use lossless compression on their raw files. Writing 30MB raws to flash memory takes a while, and 8 30MB photos = 240 MB = a lot to process and write for a tiny little camera. Very strange to me that they don't fix this. There's no reason not to use lossless compression, and it can be done very quickly, or at least faster than writing double the file size.

I need to repeat, video quality is disappointing. Why repeat? I keep hearing the same "if you want good video quality, buy I video camera" - getting a second camera is not the answer.

The reasonable thing to do is for Fuji to get the video quality at the comparable level with everything else on the market. Not exceed, like the still image quality, just match the other offerings. Whatever the technical limitation with sensor and such, well, most simple users don't get and don't care, they simply want something comparable. Cheers!

You see, if Fuji sales were hurt because of poor video they would have definitely put their efforts in improving it. On the contrary, good sales numbers tell them their customers don't care a whit about video.

^^ They aren't even close to #1 so there is always room for improvement.

Their sensors are already among the best you can get for mirrorless for still photography so why are they #1 from bottom for video ?

They suck at video compared to say a decent performing camera with video like the D750. Some people who also want to shoot video will need to buy another system for video or sell off the Fuji and get a system that serves both purposes.

I personally know 3 people who very reluctantly sold their entire Fuji system mainly because they couldn't afford to maintain two systems.

If Fuji had decent video performance they would probably still be with Fuji.

First - they don't use xtrans in the A series ... and the video is not better.

Second - if the still you get from the sensor is good, the video will be also. It is just a matter of speed in reading and encoding the data to a video stream, which is related to CPU and memory speed. Also, mind that the sensor itself is similar to all the others: only the RGB filter differs (which implies very different demosaicing algorithm - that is all).

brendon1000 wrote:I personally know 3 people who very reluctantly sold their entire Fuji system mainly because they couldn't afford to maintain two systems.Well, brendon1000,I personally know FOUR people who sold every device capable of recording video because they were sick and tired of thier wives taking videos of them drunk and showing the results on HD monitors!

^^ Yes people do take a lot of meaningless video but guess what a huge majority takes pretty much badly framed, tilted crappy photos too but they still buy DSLRs and mirrorless cameras when a cell phone will not even test their limits.

People who are serious shooters are a small fraction of the people buying such cameras.

So those people who make up the bunch of sales do care about fluff like 4k and stuff which you and I don't use at all.

There is a link between X-trans and video limits. At the moment, X-Trans requires high processing power, so the discharge speed of the sensor is limited. That's where video is involved. By the way Fuji internals have stated more than once that the limit of X system is sensor reading speed. They consider this the next problem that has to be solved.

>You see, if Fuji sales were hurt because of poor video they would have definitely put their efforts in improving it. On the contrary, good sales numbers tell them their customers don't care a whit about video.

Fuji makes more money from their silly instax cameras than from the X System. They're still trying to figure out how to make actual money off high end photography gear.

I'm confident that they are sweating the crappy video quality, and that they have lots of data on the number of people who love everything else about Fuji cameras but won't settle for a system that can't service video needs in a pinch.

Fabio, there is a difference in "what they say" and the truth... yes, the sensor readout speed is very low, but that is not due to "X-Trans" ... the sensor itself (circuitry, photo-sensors and all) is the same as any sensor, only the RGB filter differs. So the readout speed is due to their tech in general (their circuitry implementation, CPU power, memory speed, algorithms, etc) , but they couldn't say that right? :)

Badi: the difference is from the demosaicing algorithm necessary for x-trans, it is significantly more difficult to do properly. The camera companies buy most of their internals from other semiconductor fabs and such, little is actually designed in-house and what is will probably be produced by someone else who deals with the specifics of the implementation. They can get good hardware if they want it, and they do have it. They put different demands on it, though, and those demands currently produce difficulties for video, among other things.

I don't understand those voices of hate ;). Don't want to use it - then do not, that is simple. Why people are complaining about something they will never have/use?

Go out and take pictures instead of whining at forums, remove the EXIF and then compare, who is the best ;).

As for the camera itself, it is a little bit overpriced due to its vintage vibe, but IQ and ergonomics are excellent. Unfortunately Fuji glasses are still to pricey. I'll stick to my plastic-cheap Nikons for now ;).

The 35mm f/1.4 lens is excellent. Nice color/contrast and edge-to-edge clarity. Generally, the IQ looks fine. I did take note of the magenta cast in one of the photos showing the partly cloudy sky. I think the lenses are the big attraction, and the sensor produces pleasing color. As far as ergonomics and auto focus go, to each his own. This is not a camera I would choose, however it has appealing qualities.

Fuji optics are great, and that 35mm was the reason I went Fujifilm, grabbed myself a cheap X-E1 over a year ago, and it's been a good camera ever since, but you do have to be patience with it or it'll drive you mad.....I was tempted to upgrade with the X-T1, but this X-T10 seems good value for money, but I'm in no hurry and I might wait a bit longer for the XPro2 if that ever comes out

Ever see that site that breaks down the cost of phone products? Example, Apple iPhone or watch parts and labour costs are about $85.00? I'd like to see that with cameras. I have a feeling some of these devices that are the same price at retail have vastly different production/parts costs.

I highly recommend having the comments here read by your computer. Lean back and enjoy! It's just totally hilarious to listen to all that "Sony is better, Panasonic is faster, Fuji has the best lenses, you suck, no you suck, you have no idea what you are talking about, mine is bigger", and so on.

I would suggest an obnoxious military-style voice. Also try a sultry female voice for extra kicks.

Looks like C-AF is still not that great. But single point AF seems to be significantly improved and up to expectations though. So not a sports spray and pray type of camera like the complainer below wants.

I don't know why someone would think you'd need to MF this camera. I have an XE-1 and I've never manually focused a native lens, except the 14mm doing astrophotography.

If I'm going to have a dedicated camera in lieu of my smartphone, then I want photo AND video in that dedicated camera, and I expect video quality comparable to the photo quality. By not having competitive video, Fuji is missing the boat.

Read my post carefully. My point is simply that the world is moving to convergence, whether the connoisseurs like it or not. If dedicated cameras want to stay viable vis-à-vis smartphones, then not only must they offer better IQ but convergence, too. And that's what the manufacturers recognize. And that's where Fuji is missing the boat.

High-quality video is not "fancy stuff". As another poster says, if Fuji is going to offer a high-quality still camera with video, then it's an epic fail that the video isn't consistent with that level of quality. It has to do with integrity.

AF is better in a Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and Olympus. So basically Fuji has the worst autofocus in the industry. So it's good for stationary subjects and cameras. Just about ANY camera can take good photos if the subject and camera are completely stationary. Fuji's reputation for the best color in the industry doesn't make up for it even remotely. You can easily adjust color. You can't fix bad focus. There is nothing more frustrating than a camera that can't lock on.

I can guess the response from many at DPR. "Use manual focus." Well it seems you have to with a Fuji. P.S. I'll put my money on Panasonic's AF against any experienced manual focuser in a tight focus shootout anyday.

I think the disparity on reviews on how bad the autofocus is really depends on how much the reviewer shoots photos and how much one had grown up being used to manual focusing.

The fuji's AF are incredibly slow. Accuracy has always been there, but many situations are too demanding for the camera's autofocus system. Either you dont challenge the camera and use it within the bounds of what it's good at or expect to get a lot of out of focus shots.

Reading most reviews on the internet you wouldnt get this. If you use the camera enough you can read between the lines and see that it generally is sort of acknowledged in reviews, its just not made perfectly clear that this camera will be frustrating for most users.

@darngooddesign Uh, no. This review states that this camera has the latest autofocus firmware benefits and still lags behind the competition. You obviously haven't used the competition, which apparently smokes Fuji.

So you haven't used a Fuji then? It may lag behind, some of the competition, but it is not the worst int he industry, and it is more than good enough for the majority of your photographic needs. If you need to capture really fast action get a top DSLR obviously.

@dpgreg I edited my post during your reply. As I said in my edit. I expect many to reply "use manual focus". Well all of the competition has that also. And as I said in my edited reply, my Panasonic AF will do better, in more situations, even if you are very good at manual focus. So the ONLY advantage Fuji has is good color, which it does have, but which is easily corrected with editing.

@darngooddesign so who else is there in the industry? Canon is the only company who is not mentioned in this review among those that are better at autofocus. But from what I've read, it seems Fuji is behind Canon in AF as well. So yes Fuji is the worst in the industry in AF. Fuji has color, that's it, face it.

"AF is better in a Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and Olympus" -- and where did you get that information from? If you checked the tests on youtube you'd find out it's complete nonsense."You can easily adjust color" -- you must be very inexperienced and naive. Every camera has a very different color signature and it can be very difficult or impossible getting colors you want if a camera doesn't cooperate.

AF is sufficient for many genres of photography, not excellent though, but there are many other things on which Fuji excels over the competition: dynamic range, color rendition, optical quality, control and layout design, viewfinders, etc...

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about as you haven't used one. I am able to shoot moving subjects at night using Zone focusing with PDAF. In fact, I am surprised dpreview recommends single point focus over zone focusing for tracking anything.

The main advantage of my Fuji is that it is much more fun to use than my (previous) Sony or Olympus. The ergonomics and user interface is just a better fit to me. But if you need all the most exciting features of another vendor just go for it. There is no right and wrong.

Again someone who only compares features and test charts and doesn't care about using a camera.

While the AF system may not be the fastest, it will certainly do the job for most types of photography.Whereas birding and wildlife require really long focal lengths and a sturdy, weather sealed body with good battery life (I'm talking about a DSLR as you might guess) and sports require almost the same qualities depending on the genre (again, the DSLR comes first) other genres of photography don't require super fast autofocus performance.

I have a Canon DSLR (2007) and a Fuji x100s and I like both equally with clear advantages for each in various areas.While I would never bring my Fuji to a sports event, I usually don't travel with my DSLR. And when traveling, I never missed a shot with the truly bad AF on my X100s...

@forpetessakeYour question: " 'AF is better in a Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and Olympus" -- and where did you get that information from?"Answer: the DPR review above

Your reply to my statement:" 'You can easily adjust color' -- you must be very inexperienced and naive. Every camera has a very different color signature and it can be very difficult or impossible getting colors you want if a camera doesn't cooperate."My answer: You must be very inexperienced and naïve at shooting and editing RAW. So just let Fuji handle it, you'll be fine. :P

It's interesting to see the evolution of DPR's views about touchscreens. It has evolved to be simply a "con" to not have one.

I disagree. Part of the appeal of Fuji's ergonomics is their analogue control. I can't see how touchscreen control would integrate with dials. Fuji has very deliberately headed in the analogue direction - and with business success. Quite why the reviewer thinks it is a con not to have one in a camera designed to offer analogue core controls and why other posters think it fits within that design goal is beyond me. If you want a mirror-less camera with a touchscreen, there are plenty on offer. For me and many others, a touchscreen would be a deal-breaker.

Why would it be a deal breaker? You're saying you won't consider a camera if it has a touch screen, even if you aren't required to use it? My E-M10 has a touchscreen, but I could strictly use the manual controls if I wanted. I will say that touch-to-focus is really nice to have. It just gives an additional level of control.

I suppose the existence of WiFi capability would be a deal breaker too.

To clarify, while I think adding touch focus would be a nice option, but I can't see how adding touch exposure control would work unless there were a distinct drive mode. Without that there would be a disparity between what you see on the screen and what you see the dials set to; how would you then tell the camera to ignore the touch screen and go back to using the analog controls?

Personally I would be more interested in a touch screen for playback of photos. I'd love swiping and pinch-zooming for reviewing photos.

@darngooddesign your reply reveals you don't realize what a touchscreen with good autofocus opens up. Move the AF box with a D-pad? That is pre-historically slow. Touchscreen with good autofocus is nearly instantaneous, you think it, you take it.

I can only conclude you didn't read my posts because I said touch screen for focus would be a nice option. I even said it would be easy to integrate with the D-Pad. However, I would hardly use it because I prefer the viewfinder; how exactly should I touch focus when the camera is up against my face? I can see myself using it with low angled shots where I can't hold the camera to my eye. It would be fantastic on the next X-A or X-M cameras.

You could easily use the eye sensor to deactivate the touch screen.

But you're right, with the iPhone being seven years old, how could anyone imagine touch focus?

To everyone who replied....... Thanks for sharing. I guess I expected to be in a minority here, but so be it. The fact is I just don't LIKE touchscreens. Not everyone has to. I prefer using the EVF for focusing so a touchscreen is useless. I often use MF lenses. I often use MF with AF lenses because it can be more accurate. I frequently use hyperfocal focusing to get everything in focus for landscapes, so focusing on any point is redundant. And in my experience with phones, touch screens are poor in bright light, impossible with gloves, dodgy when we wet, and dodgy when old. I'd simply prefer a camera without one thanks.

Huh?? You may not like their preset functions, but it's a massive non sequitur to the rest of your diatribe. There is nothing in the design of Fuji cameras that prevents anyone from shooting RAW. Many do. And nothing that leads users to the use of auto modes any more than any other system. They offer easy analogue access to ISO, SS, aperture and EC which is about as direct in exposure control as it gets.

Hi Caerolle - OK, I hear what you're saying. TBH there's little intellectual difference between a scroll wheel and a dial/ring on the body or lens. One has to turn them to operate the camera. It's just the execution that is different and which we like comes down to personal preference. I must admit to preferring the physical dials when it comes to looking at the camera to see the settings - even before it's turned on. FWIW I use all of the exposure modes at different times, and have never used auto-ISO once.

How is it hypocritic? There is a big difference between saying you prefer all manual controls and you will only use manual controls.

Using myself as an example, I like the Fujis for the manual controls. I've had several different ones and currently have the X-T1; while I love an aperture ring and shutter speed dial, I'm ok with menu driven ISO or Auto-ISO. I have the 55-200, which has an unmarked aperture ring, I'd prefer it to be marked but since I use it occasionally, and at those events I usually keep it as wide open as I can, it doesn't bother me; also, there is no equivalent Fuji zoom which does have a marked ring. That being said even if the XC50-230 had the same aperture range and was $200 cheaper, I would still choose the XF for its aperture ring. My primary lenses have marked aperture rings.

It's possible I missed it, but i'm surprised at the lack of a "what's in the box" section. Also, I wonder if you did an evaluation of the bundled Silkypix? For all of it's faults, the latest revision (IMO) represents a significant boost to the raw conversions, and much better "native" film simulation colour support than that offered by LR.

I'll take the Nikon D5500 over the Fujifilm X-T10. Even in the scoring the D5500 should have been given at least the same score of 80%. How a camera handles is more subjective than your other rating categories. I think the touchscreen on the D5500 was very nicely implemented. I've used the touch screens on the Canon t5i, S120 and the Olympus Stylus 1 and wasn't too impressed but I'm impressed with the D5500 touch screen. The Fuji doesn't have a touch screen. In addition, Nikon image quality is second to none.

"Like the X-E2, the X100T has yet to benefit from Fujifilm's latest AF update, but I'd be willing to guess it will receive some sort of improvement to its autofocus in the near future"

A guess? About a camera not being reviewed? If you're going to guess about something, make it interesting - I'd be happy with just the 6 winning Lotto numbers for the next UK draw ;)

"Many folks find the colors and skin tones produced by the X-Trans sensor to be more accurate and pleasing than tradition (sic) sensor types."

Many folks? Although the part I really take exception to is "colors ... more accurate". At best that's a little disingenuous, when the camera suffers the standard (and inherent) X-Trans issue of poor colour resolution. Look at the turf in the Safeco Field arena; it's just a mushy greenish-brown mess, and that's at ISO250. Yes, I know it's mud...

What you like isn't the accuracy of the colours; ironically it's the *inaccuracy* of the colours you enjoy. That saturated look reflects our memories, not the reality. It's the same reason the original Velvia film was such a big hit!

I was just about to write in to say how much I enjoyed DPR including subjective and opinionated parts for a change! I do agree with the points Lan makes, but I'm very happy to overlook a little hyperbole as the cost of being up-front with bold opinions. I found the subjective comparisons with the relevant Sony and Nikon to be really useful. Personally, I'd vote for including more subjective stuff along with the objective stuff. As long as I can tell the difference, I find it positive.

I'm not buying a camera for forensic work and I would assume most folk aren't interested in accurate colors either (whatever the 'accurate' may mean). What people are interested in is "pleasing colors". And in that respect the latest Fuji cameras are just as good if not better than the best species of Canon, Nikon, and Pentax, and noticeably better than the likes of Sony.

Historically, the big stated advantage of X-Trans was the lack of an anti-alias filter. The review mentions it. However, many Bayer pattern cameras no longer use an AA filter. Are there other elements of X-Trans that warrant its selection over a Bayer pattern camera?

A case of 'too little, too late'? It certainly appears to have little advantage over the X-E2, which I prefer, due to the placement of the EVF. However, Fuji scores in having very little compression of the RAW files, which gives cleaner images, despite being long passed by Samsung's 20MP and Sony's 24MP.

In fact, Fuji's RAW file is about 45% larger than the Sony's. It is worth noting that Samsung's EX2F has considerably less RAW compression, if any. Of all my cameras, I prefer the Samsung EX2F and the Fuji X-E2. Though my D700 is superior, it is just too cumbersome and heavy for me at my age.

Looks like a great cam. I know, other models can be better in this and that but any camera in this class is pretty great anyway.

What I always find odd is why are these 'young sibling' cameras smaller and lighter than the top model. Or rather why is the top model bigger and heavier, despite there being very little difference in features and tech. Why can't I get the best AF and the best EVF in a small package?

"Fujifilm is aiming it at hobbyist and a younger generation of creatives: essentially those who might not be able to afford (or don't want to spend more than $1000 on) the X-T1, but still want the same image quality it offers."

Isn't not being to afford sort of similar to not wanting to spend more?

I can afford whatever I like (w.r.t. camera's) but I won't spend more then $1000 on a camera.... I always bought my camera's at the end of their life cycle. I rather spend the rest of my budget on traveling so I can actually use the camera.

I have only one objection: "In your hand" section. It should be noted that the camera is very poor ergonomically for anything but the lightest lenses. There is no grip to speak of and even with the 18-55mm kit lens shooting with one hand is very inconvenient. In addition the placement of buttons on the back and easy to bump front and rear dials makes accidental changes a constant nuisance. The mentioned puny and expensive Fuji grip is hardly a solution. Hopefully, the third party larger grips will come to the market soon.

Grips are only good if they are good grips. And good grips HAVE to be large, and fully finger-wrappable. Cameras without grips allow you to wrap you fingers/hands around them any way you want.

I suppose that by 'poor ergonomically' you mean 'not good for dangling from the hand'. When shooting, there is no basic difference between grip and non-grip unless you are shooting sports, or keeping the camera dangling from your finger tips when not using the camera.

I've used as many grip-less cameras as gripped cameras and come to the conclusion: grips do not equal better ergonomics.

Just like touchscreens: they are great unless the underlying OS is poorly adapted for finger input. Grips have to be properly designed to have any ergonomic advantage at all.

@Caerolle: Yes, it is much better organised for back-focus. Still, the AF-ON button feels exactly like all the other buttons on the back with the same travel and click, rather than depressing like only the AF-ON button should.

Why do you care? The resolution of the sensor is more than sufficient for all but the esoteric purposes. It's really all about the lenses, and Fuji is in much better position than the competition. People are willing to pay higher premium for lower pixel count -- this should tell you that the latter doesn't mean anything.

@privater. Do you actually NEED those 24MPs or do you just WANT it because others have it? I have been using a 24MP A6000 for a while and can't remember a single instance where I made any use of those 24million pixels.

@Richard....off subject...why can I see people comments that I have specifically blocked?

Everytime I read one of their comments I want to slam my head against my quarts counter until it breaks and stab myself in the face with the shards until I no longer feel the pain of reading their comment. I can't handle this Richard! I take no responsibility for my negative remarks to people that I have blocked. I blocked them for a reason Richard. I enjoy DPR. Just not their comments. 😣😞

Dpreview, I am not sure if it is clear from your review but Fuji implementation of face detection is as follows: if you turn on face detection, PDAF turns off. You are effectively back to contrast AF only with Face Detection. That is why it does not work effectively in Continuous AF mode. So if you want your PDAF points to work, turn off that Face Detection. Fuji is the only mfr with this weird configuration, on Sony, for example, you can have PDAF and face detection at the same time with no problems.

Another problem, at least on XT1, which was well documented by users (there is a thread in fuji forum about it) is that eye EF is inaccurate in that it consistently focuses on the furthest eye, even though it supposed to on the nearest eye. I ended up just turning that feature off. I want that PDAF

You talk from ignorance.Face detection requires detecting face, doesn't it? The PDAF can't detect anything, other than distance, so it can be used to focus on the closest subject for example. But you will need to finish with CDAF anyway to detect a face, or an eye, or any other subject.

Don't pay too much attention to CaeTROLLE, s/he is obviously suffering from a bit of envy (much like a lot of people who criticise Leica and their users) unable to accept the fact that different people like different things and just move the fark on!

Disappointing to see emphasis placed on point and shoot OOC JPEGs and little mention of true RAW IQ potential, operational speed and street pricing. Not to mention the substantial resolution discrepancy, which will mitigate 'pleasing JPEGs'.

Lack of proper RAW support in Lightroom, demosaicing problems with X-Trans and the fact that the A6000 has a $100-250 street price advantage seem rather important to go mostly ignored in this article, IMO. As is the obvious chroma (and some luma) NR being applied to their higher ISO RAWs. The detail discrepancy between the Fuji and Nikon or Sony 24MP models is substantial, yet goes totally unmentioned in context of comparing RAW DR and higher ISO.

How does the "substantial resolution discrepancy" mitigate pleasing JPEGs exactly? 16MP may be below the resolution other camera companies are using, but so what? It's still plenty of resolution for most folks.

And I talked a lot about how good the OOC JPEGs are, but in no way does this review approach the X-T10 as a 'point and shoot,' or refer to using it in such a way. In fact, I spent quite a few pages discussing manual settings and controls.

The difference in price between the a6000 and X-T10 is valid, but for our purposes, with prices changing daily in various regions, we use the launch price as our baseline.

Clearly you're in the Sony camp, and that is fine. While the two may have scored similarly, keep in mind, we gave the a6000 a gold award, and the X-T10 a silver. So you at least have that to hang on to.

"As is the obvious chroma (and some luma) NR being applied to their higher ISO RAWs."

Oh please, do your homework before posting anti-Fuji propaganda.

As has been proved countless times in many articles (including those of mine), Fuji does NOT apply NR in RAW's. This common misconception was based on the LR's (before the current version, poor) RAW conversions with their characteristic color bleed.

"Lack of proper RAW support in Lightroom,"

Not any more. The last version has already fixed the color bleeding problem.

And you, of course, didn't bother mentioning how much better the Fuji lens lineup is. With future, as opposed to the practically dead (no native E lens in the future, "only" FE ones) E mount.

The 16 MP Fuji sensor will be deemed perfectly good enough until the day Fuji come out with a 20 MP version, whereupon everyone will immediately declare that 16 MP is no good at all (and that's what they though all along, natch).

I would love to see a Fuji ILC with it´s design and excellent build quality, X-mount and great lens lineup, but with all internal electronics and DSP software from Sony A-series (sensor, AF-tracking speed, RAW-files that work great in Adobe Lr, etc).

(1) Obviously we can see for ourselves that the low rating for the XT-10's video capabilities has affected the overall rating, but dPreview might want to offer both a comprehensive rating that takes all the camera's attributes into consideration and a separate assessment for stills only.

(2) For ILC reviews, please consider adding an adding an attribute along with the ones for value, image, etc. to take into account the range of lenses and accessories that are available (in the native mount, but not just from the OEM). Fuji has built a fine stable of lenses that puts Sony to shame, and while it's possible to use Canon and other lenses on a a6000 by adding an adapter, that's an imperfect solution.

While Fuji does offer video, nobody buys a Fuji for that purpose.Therefore, it would only be fair to rate the camera by its stills-capabilities alone.

The problem with the lens/accessories-rating is another matter, though.99% of people who buy interchangeable lens cameras will, unfortunately, never change the lenses... The remaining 1% is then splitted into two groups:Enthusiasts who want a better "kit zoom" and the rest who care for specialist lenses only.

absolutely agree on 1st point. Many people (me included) are not interested in video feature at all. Would be nice to have a combined score and a separate still photography score (maybe a separate video score for video people) :)

"Therefore, it would only be fair to rate the camera by its stills-capabilities alone."

Then, imagine that fuji comes with a camera called X-T10v, which has everything X-T10, plus much better video. How should you rating that X-T10v? Same score as X-T10, that's clearly unfair to X-T10v. Better score than X-T10? that's contrary to your original point that X-T10 should be rating as still only.

Barney, no, not for that reason. There are lots of people who simply don't care about video, period. if DPREVIEW would split Video score from Still Photography score, and have one combined - that would be great.

P.S. I know people who bought GH4 for video only, they never took pictures with it, so that combined score would not make sense for them either.

I like RusYus' idea of having two separate scoring categories/criteria that combined into one overall score. It may be a little more work but in today's time, where all cameras have to by hybrids and many are very competent video capture tools, it is necessary to break down the "Movie / video mode" score into separate categories.

DPR has been beating the dated sensor drum consistently on Fujifilm releases of late. If the rumors floating around about a Sony sensor coming in the relatively near future are true, Fujifilm cameras would be hard to keep on the shelves. That said, this camera won't have particularly good resale value when it's time to replace it with one of the new ones featuring a more capable sensor both resolution wise as well as with dynamic range.

But the current Fuji sensor is still as good if not better than any other crop sensor on the market. the only thing a new sensor will bring is more MP. But I personally am fine with 16MP. I can't imagine a new sensor will increase high ISO performance or DR performance all that much, if at all.

@KonstantinosK - I think photominion is suggesting using the X-Trans colour filter array on the rumoured 'a7000' sensor instead of a Bayer pattern. There's no silicon-level difference between an X-Trans and a Bayer sensor, just which CFA you apply to the front.

The X-T10's Raw dynamic range results are very much what we've become used to seeing from Sony sensors and all the images Fujifilm has published of the sensors it's using have shown the characteristic wiring patterns of Sony column ADC chips, I believe.

SO we have a G& which does AF well for tracking subjects, has excellent video. Has good photo IQ. It scores 80% and gets a silver award. But if I remmeber the reviewer correctly he was confused by the cam because what was it...

Now we have an XT-10, that is very poor in video and no good in action shooting with a 16 MP senso. And it scores the same?

Some sensors of camera's are getting long in the tooth, but this subjectivity is too.

I have yet to see a lot of things I find special. I see details that are lost in higher ISO more so than on SOny APS-c and are those ISO's real?

Not that it is so bad, in fact I agree that Fuji camera's are really nice with nice glass to go with them. But they are not something special wehn it comes to IQ. When it comes to IQ currently D750 and D7200 in their class impress me a lot more.

The Nikon D750 got the better IQ, no question, at a price which is 60-70 % higher for the body. The D7200 with a comparable 18-55 2.8-4.0 lens is nearly 100% heavier and double the bulk. So we have to compare comparable cameras. The A6000 is a contender with better video, better RAWs if you got the time to spend hours at home at your mac/PC and with disappointing JPG's. The X-T1 with the XF 27mm is like a point and shoot size wise and got an IQ comparable to the D7200.

I have mFT cams for a reason....But what impresses me purely based on sensor IQ are those cams. D7200 sensor could be fit in any APS/c mirrorless. And get the same impressive IQ. So I was purely talking about IQ.

When it comes to what I personally like it is the mFT cams I have. IQ is less, but easily good enough for me. But that is a whole other matter.

I am owning the XT1 for nearly a year and tried the X-T10 recently. Send it back. Build quality is a big step back (touch the flash housing e.g.) compared to the X-T1 and due to the smaller size, its difficult to reach the 4 way controller with your thumb. IQ is the same, AF is the same as with the X-T1 (firmware 4.0). O.K., its 400 Euro less you have to spend, thats an argument. My advise: if you, in any way, are able to spend the additional money for the X-T1, go for it, its worth it. Feeling the XT1 in your hand is a very non technical, haptically feeling of pleasure, which is very difficult to describe. Its just much more fun. Don't want to criticize the X-T10 too much. JPGs are a pleasure to shoot (-2 noise reduction and -1 highlight reduction) but in the end I (you) want to have a t smile at your face taking your camera and feel it in your hands as well.

More about gear in this article

In our most recent Field Test, we took Fujifilm's X-T10 out onto the streets of Seattle with local photographer Brad Puet. After capturing our street portraits we took the images to a local print shop, to get them turned into exhibition-quality prints. Read more

It's the season for pre-holiday financial earnings reports, and Fujifilm's latest numbers tell a familiar story - digital camera sales are down on the whole, with steady sales of higher-end products. Despite that, Fuji's imaging solutions division saw an increase in operating income, up to 12.4 billion yen in the first half of the financial year, marking a 2.7x improvement year-on-year. Read more

Our full Fujifilm X-T10 review takes a look at many aspects of the camera's performance, with in-depth analysis of our studio tests and shooting experiences. But if you're looking for something more bite-sized, we've got that too. Take a look at the quick version of our review, shot in Seattle's lovely Golden Gardens where many of the images featured in our full review were taken. See video

The Fujifilm X-T10 puts many of the X-T1's capabilities into a smaller, less expensive body. It uses the same 16MP X-Trans CMOS sensor and EXR Processor II and, despite a more compact body, offers an additional custom function button and even squeezes in a pop-up flash. Is the X-T10 capable of holding its own against APS-C competitors? Read our full analysis. Read more

We had been shooting around with a pre-production version of the Fujifilm X-T10 for some time and recently got in a final version of the camera. Like the flagship X-T1, it uses Fujifilm's 16MP X-Trans APS-C sensor, which is known for producing pleasing colors. As such, we included a variety of out-of-camera JPEGs as well as Raw conversions. See the gallery

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.